Top 20 Greatest F1 Drivers of all time - BBC list [split]

In our society the truth is based when there is consensus between specialists about a specific topic. If you don't agree with it, it is up to you to prove your point and convince other specialists that your point is the right one, but before you manage that the truth will still be the other one.

What you describe their is a framework of existence based on consensus. Community living exists on consensus etc. The truth is entirely different. Unless when we say truth, we are meaning entirely different things.

You make my point very clear. If truth is as you define it, then it's quite unsettling isn't it?

What you describe their is a framework of existence based on consensus. Community living exists on consensus etc. The truth is entirely different. Unless when we say truth, we are meaning entirely different things.

You make my point very clear. If truth is as you define it, then it's quite unsettling isn't it?

There's no truth being discussed here, but just opinion.

When I'm talking about truth I'm talking about a relative truth since there is no absolute truth, only our perception about a specific point. For example, When I was a child I learned that Pluto was the 9th planet and that was the truth at the time, if someone said different no one would take them serious. Now after new facts came to our knowledge specialists discussed the question argued in favor or against calling it planet and decided through vote ( yeah lol) that it is not a planet. Now if you say it is a planet you are wrong, and I don't need to prove to you that you are wrong, but if you think thats the truth you will need to show facts and prove otherwise. Is this unsettling? It may seem at first, but it doesn't really bother me since we can't have every subject be up to this is your opinion, this is mine, there is no absolute truth and every opinion has the same value. it would do much worse than good. I remember a case in Australia that a family decided to not treat their child that had an ordinary disease with conventional medicine, the kid died and they were charged as responsible for the kid death. Their justification for not treating the kid was that they didn't believed in conventional medicine. Obviously I took an extreme example, but I can't come here and say Nakajima was the best driver ever and expect to be taken seriously since there is a consensus about this topic that says he isn't. When you say "There's no point in giving your opinion validity based on others having it. It will not work and should not work." is a dangerous way of thinking since it puts all opinions in the same pot and allows cases like the Australia one. A specialist opinion about a specific topic must be more valuable and can be used to validity your opinion.

Relative truth, absolute truth....blah...blah.....blah....
When it comes to the greatest ever, the subject itself is so subjective that a cohesive consensus will never be arrived at.
We all have our opinions, the BBC's list being one of many.
When it comes to naming the top 10, let alone the top 5, whose to say who was the greatest. The simple fact that this list has inspired so much discussion is a reflection on whom we think is the greatest.
For me, the greatest of all time cannot be one driver. perhaps they are a multitude of them. All with vast amounts of skill, all having driven in different periods in vastly different cars.
Jim Clark is a driver whom I consider to be great because he was able to win and was capable of winning in his era on the grandest of stages, the WDC and the Indy 500. His was a talent that I consider myself fortunate to have witnessed first hand on more than one occasion.
Some years later it was Senna who caused me to remark to my colleagues and friends that his driving reminded me of Clark's. IMHO a portent of things to come because it was 1985 that I witnessed his skills at the track.
Hamilton is another who has reminded me of both Senna and Clark, but it is still early days IMHO to weigh in on his status on the top 20.
Mario Andretti was capable of winning in anything, he took pole position at the 1968 USGP, his first.
Gilles Villeneuve, anyone who witnessed his 2 wins at Monaco and Spain in 1981 driving a shitbox of a Ferrari would know he was one of the greats.
Moss won 16 Grands Prix without ever winning the WDC, does that detract from his greatness? I think not.
Jackie Stewart. broken wrist and all won the 1968 German GP by over 4 minutes in conditions that today would have cancelled the event.
Fangio, at a less then impressive age winning 5 WDCs and driving the drive of ages at the '57 German GP deserves mention as well.
Mansell, who won the WDC in '92 then came over to the states and won the CART championship in '93 when it was a true championship.
I cannot pick a number one from these drivers (though Clark will always be near the top of my list) without mentioning those drivers that competed before the war. Nuvolari, Rosemeyer (whom alongside Clark I consider to be right at the very pinnacle), Carraciola, Varzi....and going back even further Tommy Milton and David Bruce-Brown.
These lists are subjective at best and good for discussion, but not much more.

The league works because you don't have everyone playing everyone else at the same time. World championships do not because drivers drive to points rather than for the race win. It's accountancy - and there's never been a great accountant.

As I said earlier, this represents an irrational and unneccesary complication of this debate. The sport is governed by a set of rules and regulations, as all sports are, and the conditions of success are laid out for everyone. I dont think any driver, at the beginning of his career aims at anything less than a world championship, which is the ultimate goal of all budding racers.

Tomorrow, if a panel of experts were to sit to decide about who is the greatest tennis player of all time, and one of them says, "Grand Slams represent nothing, but a hurried competition on surfaces which favour a few type of players, with no second chance given. What is the real definition of success ? I propose the man with the least number of unforced errors over his career should be declared the greatest of all time, as in my eyes this is the ultimate differentiator of greatness"

You see how absurd this argument sounds ?

Yes, because it's not even close to my argument. Indeed it's the very opposite and backs up my arguments Grand Slams have every tennis player worth their salt. That's why although Wozniacki is seemingly always at the top of the women's rankings she isn't close to being a Great because she accumulates Points. She does the same sort of thing as a driver who keeps in contention by consistently coming 3rd; picking up the low hanging fruit and bottling it when the REAL stars come through. So Serena Williams is a Great because she wins when it matters, she doesn't cruise for easy Points.

No, you are avoiding the point. In tennis, Grand Slam wins are recognised as being the pinacle of achievement, precisely because they attract "every tennis player worth their salt" who recognise that these competitions are the barometer of achievement. In F1, each season, every driver is aiming either to win the World Championship, or to progress into a position from which they can win the World Championship. If you try to judge drivers against a different yardstick (qualifying pace, fastest laps, spectacular driving or whatever), you are judging them by something which is only a by-product of the true mission.

7xWDC, 91 GP wins, 69 pole positions, 155 podiums and 77 fastest laps. Won 2 WDCs, could have taken the easy way out but decided to revitalise the oldest and grandest F1 team. Senna try that? Nah-huh, jumped ship once the going got tough. Prost try that? Nah-huh. And he cameback, albeit he didn't return to his former heights, but he still proved that he was still up there with the best at the age of 43. The man who brought us Catalunya '96 and Brazil '06. Greatest ever F1 driver. Michael Schumacher

No, you are avoiding the point. In tennis, Grand Slam wins are recognised as being the pinacle of achievement, precisely because they attract "every tennis player worth their salt" who recognise that these competitions are the barometer of achievement. In F1, each season, every driver is aiming either to win the World Championship, or to progress into a position from which they can win the World Championship. If you try to judge drivers against a different yardstick (qualifying pace, fastest laps, spectacular driving or whatever), you are judging them by something which is only a by-product of the true mission.

Yep, I think this - rubbishing of achievements that a driver has 'because he had (insert your favorite excuse)' is just a sign of a position without a strong basis.

If you were to believe that in every sport merit and talent is recognized (which I hope you do believe in), then this argument falls flat. For example, in football leagues, the best players inevitably find themselves in the best clubs over time. In tennis, the best players eventually have access to the best of facilities, coaches, specially designed racquets and shoes which widens the gap among the best and the average. In cycling the best cyclists in the world have teams of scientists working on their equipment, training, and nutrition which costs a lot of money. All of these at a cursory glance look like unfair advantages over common joes in their respective sports. When actually its simply a recognition of merit.

In the very same way in Formula 1, the chances of a mediocre driver finding his way into a dominant team for long stretches of time (and being successful there) are slim. Thus, when a top team hires a racing driver and starts 'building' a car and team around him, the chances are that the driver is already pretty damn good in the first place, probably better than anyone else on the grid who is available. In this way, both team and driver are maximising potential of success. Thus, if a driver wins multiple WDCs, some of them dominantly, its because he deserves the equipment he had, and because the team thought no one else on the grid was capable of delivering the same results.

This is one of the chief reasons why in my opinion its impossible to simply brush away statistics as a non factor when considering greatness of a driver.

I have the same stand with Sebastian Vettel as well, and I think 3 WDCs on the trot surely justify him being placed in the top 10

7xWDC, 91 GP wins, 69 pole positions, 155 podiums and 77 fastest laps. Won 2 WDCs, could have taken the easy way out but decided to revitalise the oldest and grandest F1 team. Senna try that? Nah-huh, jumped ship once the going got tough. Prost try that? Nah-huh. And he cameback, albeit he didn't return to his former heights, but he still proved that he was still up there with the best at the age of 43. The man who brought us Catalunya '96 and Brazil '06. Greatest ever F1 driver. Michael Schumacher

Thank you and goodnight.

He did, actually. It worked well for a while, nearly winning the 1990 WDC. Then it fell apart for Ferrari (but not so much for Prost, who scored another WDC later as we all know).

If you try to judge drivers against a different yardstick (qualifying pace, fastest laps, spectacular driving or whatever), you are judging them by something which is only a by-product of the true mission.

The trouble with judging them by that "true" mission is that you are indeed saying that a driver who comes 3rd in every race is greater than his team-mate that wins half of them and retires in the other half through no fault of his own. Because the first driver, by being slower all the time, has achieved more Points than his better, faster, unluckier team-mate.

The trouble with judging them by that "true" mission is that you are indeed saying that a driver who comes 3rd in every race is greater than his team-mate that wins half of them and retires in the other half through no fault of his own. Because the first driver, by being slower all the time, has achieved more Points than his better, faster, unluckier team-mate.

So, what do you think the first driver should do about his situation? Does he think about how to put himself in a better position to win the WDC? Does he work to effect change within his own team? Does he seek to convince the team principals of any better teams that he is a better number one driver than their current ones?

Or is he just happy because he is winning more races than his team-mate?

When it comes to the greatest ever, the subject itself is so subjective that a cohesive consensus will never be arrived at.

I can't agree. We certainly don't have a consensus now, but we may or may not have in the future, who knows? Phelps is considered the greatest swimmer, Jordan the greatest basketball player. Will anyone start arguing with you if you say Loeb is the greatest WRC driver? I don't think so.

We all have our opinions, the BBC's list being one of many.When it comes to naming the top 10, let alone the top 5, whose to say who was the greatest. The simple fact that this list has inspired so much discussion is a reflection on whom we think is the greatest.For me, the greatest of all time cannot be one driver. perhaps they are a multitude of them. All with vast amounts of skill, all having driven in different periods in vastly different cars.Jim Clark is a driver whom I consider to be great because he was able to win and was capable of winning in his era on the grandest of stages, the WDC and the Indy 500. His was a talent that I consider myself fortunate to have witnessed first hand on more than one occasion. Some years later it was Senna who caused me to remark to my colleagues and friends that his driving reminded me of Clark's. IMHO a portent of things to come because it was 1985 that I witnessed his skills at the track. Hamilton is another who has reminded me of both Senna and Clark, but it is still early days IMHO to weigh in on his status on the top 20. Mario Andretti was capable of winning in anything, he took pole position at the 1968 USGP, his first. Gilles Villeneuve, anyone who witnessed his 2 wins at Monaco and Spain in 1981 driving a shitbox of a Ferrari would know he was one of the greats. Moss won 16 Grands Prix without ever winning the WDC, does that detract from his greatness? I think not. Jackie Stewart. broken wrist and all won the 1968 German GP by over 4 minutes in conditions that today would have cancelled the event. Fangio, at a less then impressive age winning 5 WDCs and driving the drive of ages at the '57 German GP deserves mention as well. Mansell, who won the WDC in '92 then came over to the states and won the CART championship in '93 when it was a true championship.I cannot pick a number one from these drivers (though Clark will always be near the top of my list) without mentioning those drivers that competed before the war. Nuvolari, Rosemeyer (whom alongside Clark I consider to be right at the very pinnacle), Carraciola, Varzi....and going back even further Tommy Milton and David Bruce-Brown. These lists are subjective at best and good for discussion, but not much more.

I agree that these lists are subjective since there is no consensus about what is the best criteria to classified the drivers. So I have no problem if someone place Fangio, Clark, Senna or Schumacher as the greatest F1 driver but if someone place Mansell for example I will not take his opinion serious unless he come up with a really good argumentation justifying why he thinks this.

7xWDC, 91 GP wins, 69 pole positions, 155 podiums and 77 fastest laps. Won 2 WDCs, could have taken the easy way out but decided to revitalise the oldest and grandest F1 team. Senna try that? Nah-huh, jumped ship once the going got tough. Prost try that? Nah-huh. And he cameback, albeit he didn't return to his former heights, but he still proved that he was still up there with the best at the age of 43. The man who brought us Catalunya '96 and Brazil '06. Greatest ever F1 driver. Michael Schumacher

Thank you and goodnight.

I took a wild guess at your age after reading that post, checked your profile, and was spot on.

Yep, I think this - rubbishing of achievements that a driver has 'because he had (insert your favorite excuse)' is just a sign of a position without a strong basis.

If you were to believe that in every sport merit and talent is recognized (which I hope you do believe in), then this argument falls flat. For example, in football leagues, the best players inevitably find themselves in the best clubs over time. In tennis, the best players eventually have access to the best of facilities, coaches, specially designed racquets and shoes which widens the gap among the best and the average. In cycling the best cyclists in the world have teams of scientists working on their equipment, training, and nutrition which costs a lot of money. All of these at a cursory glance look like unfair advantages over common joes in their respective sports. When actually its simply a recognition of merit.

In the very same way in Formula 1, the chances of a mediocre driver finding his way into a dominant team for long stretches of time (and being successful there) are slim. Thus, when a top team hires a racing driver and starts 'building' a car and team around him, the chances are that the driver is already pretty damn good in the first place, probably better than anyone else on the grid who is available. In this way, both team and driver are maximising potential of success. Thus, if a driver wins multiple WDCs, some of them dominantly, its because he deserves the equipment he had, and because the team thought no one else on the grid was capable of delivering the same results.

This is one of the chief reasons why in my opinion its impossible to simply brush away statistics as a non factor when considering greatness of a driver.

I have the same stand with Sebastian Vettel as well, and I think 3 WDCs on the trot surely justify him being placed in the top 10

are you comparing the difference in performance that a specially designed rackets can give to a tennis player to the difference in performance that a car advantage can give to a driver?

So, what do you think the first driver should do about his situation? Does he think about how to put himself in a better position to win the WDC? Does he work to effect change within his own team? Does he seek to convince the team principals of any better teams that he is a better number one driver than their current ones?

Or is he just happy because he is winning more races than his team-mate?

The SI unit prefix list does not go down to a small enough level to go before the amount of toss I would give about what the driver does or thinks. But you can bet that History will judge him as better than his team-mate - at least while there are people around who are not the slaves to Bernie's Matrix.

The SI unit prefix list does not go down to a small enough level to go before the amount of toss I would give about what the driver does or thinks. But you can bet that History will judge him as better than his team-mate - at least while there are people around who are not the slaves to Bernie's Matrix.

There will never be a universally agreed version of "History", so that is a non-statement.

Anyway, I am happy that I have made my views clear. It does not matter to me whether you agree with them.

yeah and no surprise why I didn't take this part serious. First because I am talking about exclusively about F1 so what he did outside F1 has no meaning here (it may have as a overall driver but not as a F1 driver), second because if I use the criteria of WDC Schumacher or Fangio would certainly come well ahead of him as would many others.

7xWDC, 91 GP wins, 69 pole positions, 155 podiums and 77 fastest laps. Won 2 WDCs, could have taken the easy way out but decided to revitalise the oldest and grandest F1 team. Senna try that? Nah-huh, jumped ship once the going got tough. Prost try that? Nah-huh. And he cameback, albeit he didn't return to his former heights, but he still proved that he was still up there with the best at the age of 43. The man who brought us Catalunya '96 and Brazil '06. Greatest ever F1 driver. Michael Schumacher

Thank you and goodnight.

Were it that simple, Schumacher would have been put at #1 by everyone.

And, still up there at age 43 is sort of misleading. He had moments yes...but, his teammate outdrove him for the bulk of 3 seasons, and even won a race.

it just goes to show that 'greatest' is about more (or perhaps less, depending on your POV) than results.

I agree with you, as it should have been quite clear based on where Gilles Villeneuve was placed on this list, that the list wasn't just solely about numbers only. After all Gilles never won a WDC, and only drove 4 full seasons in F1. But he left his mark because of his passion, genuineness, and ability to mesmerize the fans. No different from Senna really, only that Senna won the championships that Gilles never was able to, and he had an abundance of race victories.

Whether or not Senna would be viewed differently had he lived, is hardly relevant since we'll never quite know how things would have been. He wouldn't have traded his life to be remembered the way he is now. But, what is certain is that he continues to be held in a tremendously high regard by people over 18 years after his death. Certainly he wasn't without faults. While Schumacher surpassed all of his major numbers, and holds perhaps, unattainable numbers by anyone else, he will never be remembered the way Ayrton is. Senna inspired millions of people who were not even F1 fans. Schumacher's inspiration is limited to F1 fans. One doesn't have to like Senna at all, and as has been made clear here, there are plenty who don't care/like him. His impact on F1, and the world outside it, was far greater than Schumacher's.

I agree to extent, but for 2012, he was driving quite better than in 2010 and 2011, and the car which was quite terrible in terms of failure/finish ratio.

He definitely drove better in 2012 than he did in 2010 and 2011. Overall though, compared to what people expected out of him, this comeback of his was a huge disappointment. The expectations were unrealistic though as only one driver ever managed to take a few years layoff, and come back to winning form; Niki Lauda. But when he did it, he was much younger.

He definitely drove better in 2012 than he did in 2010 and 2011. Overall though, compared to what people expected out of him, this comeback of his was a huge disappointment. The expectations were unrealistic though as only one driver ever managed to take a few years layoff, and come back to winning form; Niki Lauda. But when he did it, he was much younger.

You do make a excellent point, for Schumacher it was either World Championship or bust when he came on in 2010, but I think it became clear the team was radically different than Ferrari, but alas, this year was his best chance to win and he could have done so (Monaco and China) however, his car just was not the same after that.

He definitely drove better in 2012 than he did in 2010 and 2011. Overall though, compared to what people expected out of him, this comeback of his was a huge disappointment. The expectations were unrealistic though as only one driver ever managed to take a few years layoff, and come back to winning form; Niki Lauda. But when he did it, he was much younger.

Funnily, I see Kimi's time off from the sport as just that, rather than someone who came out of retirement to race again. Kimi obviously wanted to continue racing a lot and never stopped at any point. He found his way back into F1 and it's business as usual. I never really expected less from him to be frank.

Funnily, I see Kimi's time off from the sport as just that, rather than someone who came out of retirement to race again. Kimi obviously wanted to continue racing a lot and never stopped at any point. He found his way back into F1 and it's business as usual. I never really expected less from him to be frank.

That's certainly a pretty cunning way to dodge a direct comparison between KR's and MS' comebacks.

Prost took one year off and returned in form. Probably not surprising, cause the car was easily the best one as well. Lauda was out for three, just like Schumacher and probably surprised quite a few people by being as competitive as he was straight away. But then again, he was in his early 30s indeed. Kimi was off for two years and his comeback has been just as impressive as Lauda's, I think, both winning a race on their comeback season in a car that was not the best.

It's hard to say what exactly Schumacher lost during those three years, or if it was just the regulations or whatever. You can't blame just the car, cause he should have been able to beat Rosberg anyway if he was ever going to challenge for a world championship again. He was better occasionally, but not once over a season. It's a bit baffling... I guess he had just lost his absolute edge and that's all there is to it.

That's certainly a pretty cunning way to dodge a direct comparison between KR's and MS' comebacks.

How would you compare them?

Certainly one could state that Kimi´s comeback was more successful so far. But if that would be the relevant point, it would be also clear, which driver has to be No.1. in all these rating-lists, right?

Prost talking about the 88 Monaco qualifying. "In Monaco where he (Senna) was not very good into the weekend. The first Thursday I was ahead of him, almost all Saturday I was ahead of him until the last qualifying lap where he just like this, and them he went quick and go the pole for just a little bit ( :lol: ). I couldn't imagine he could come back like this because he was not going that very well. " Obviously we can't say Prost memories are all that trustworthy since Ayrton did not one one lap, but a sequence of laps, and he was ahead not by a little bit, but by far. Then we have Jo Ramirez saying "Alain and I would look at the time sheets and Ayrton sitting there listening what we're saying and he (Prost) said to me: He is ****ing quick! Looked to Ayrton and he was sitting there with a big smile and he winked at me."

Prost has always admitted that Ayrton was a better qualifyer than him. But in the Monaco 88 **race** Prost was with excellent race pace, started setting fastest laps (faster than Senna by more than 2sec a lap if i remember well) on his way to catching Senna, Ayrton took Prost's bait and increased his lap pace until he crashed out.

So who was the better driver in Monaco 88? Senna had the best qualy pace, but lost his cool during the race. Prost's race pace was excellent. Senna won the Monaco GP 6 times, Prost, 4 times. So both were pretty handy on this track.

There are more qualities that make a driver "great". Qualy speed is only one of them. Lauda wasn't the fastest qualifier in 1984 (compared to Prost) but he had other qualities that helped him win the WDC.

By the way, i consider that in 1988 and 1989 Senna was at his peak, and Prost was already past his peak. Prost's peak was 1985 and he was particularly impressive in the years before (1981-1985), also in the early years he didn't put a leash on himself when the track was extremely wet.

In the light of this, Lauda's 1984 title is impressive since Lauda was really OLD and arguably "rusty", while Prost was in top form.

To follow up the post above: One thing is qualifying pace, another thing is what you do in the race itself. On race it's very difficult to do qualy laps one after another because of tire degradation, brake temps, etc. Problems that are not new to 2012 but have existed since ages. I would agree that Senna was the best qualifier of all times, of course. But on the race he had his flaws (or weak points) and Prost took advantage of them on-track to win races (that's applying intelligence to beat your adversaries). That is also part of being a F1 great.

It depends on what is your criteria for ranking a F1 driver. For example if in 2012 we would choose the "best of 2012" driver using only qualifying performance as criteria, then perhaps many would choose Pastor Maldonado on the TOP 3 of best qualifyiers of 2012. Or they would rank Grosjean over Raikkonnen. But if we consider what happened in the races, then Pastor would be nowhere on the same ranking, and Raikkonen would be ranked clearly above Grosjean.

Prost has always admitted that Ayrton was a better qualifyer than him. But in the Monaco 88 **race** Prost was with excellent race pace, started setting fastest laps (faster than Senna by more than 2sec a lap if i remember well) on his way to catching Senna, Ayrton took Prost's bait and increased his lap pace until he crashed out.

So who was the better driver in Monaco 88? Senna had the best qualy pace, but lost his cool during the race. Prost's race pace was excellent. Senna won the Monaco GP 6 times, Prost, 4 times. So both were pretty handy on this track.

There are more qualities that make a driver "great". Qualy speed is only one of them. Lauda wasn't the fastest qualifier in 1984 (compared to Prost) but he had other qualities that helped him win the WDC.

By the way, i consider that in 1988 and 1989 Senna was at his peak, and Prost was already past his peak. Prost's peak was 1985 and he was particularly impressive in the years before (1981-1985), also in the early years he didn't put a leash on himself when the track was extremely wet.

In the light of this, Lauda's 1984 title is impressive since Lauda was really OLD and arguably "rusty", while Prost was in top form.

To follow up the post above: One thing is qualifying pace, another thing is what you do in the race itself. On race it's very difficult to do qualy laps one after another because of tire degradation, brake temps, etc. Problems that are not new to 2012 but have existed since ages. I would agree that Senna was the best qualifier of all times, of course. But on the race he had his flaws (or weak points) and Prost took advantage of them on-track to win races (that's applying intelligence to beat your adversaries). That is also part of being a F1 great.

It depends on what is your criteria for ranking a F1 driver. For example if in 2012 we would choose the "best of 2012" driver using only qualifying performance as criteria, then perhaps many would choose Pastor Maldonado on the TOP 3 of best qualifyiers of 2012. Or they would rank Grosjean over Raikkonnen. But if we consider what happened in the races, then Pastor would be nowhere on the same ranking, and Raikkonen would be ranked clearly above Grosjean.

Which is what is happening on most "best 2012 driver" polls.

Thats why makes no sense in saying Prost hated Monaco.

In the Monaco 88 race Senna was 50+ seconds ahead of Prost with 12 laps to go. Prost needed 4+ seconds per lap just to catch up with Ayrton (would never happen) but like you said, Senna took Prost's bait and crashed. Senna had the best pace in qualy and in race but Prost deserved the victory. In the end Prost was better that day since he made no mistake while Senna did and thats why I don't consider that Senna was in his peak. When you look at the 90, 91 seasons, Senna was just as fast but made no mistakes leading to retirements.

In 85 Prost had an impressive season but the fact that Lauda was nowhere, in the mid of the season he had one 4th place and 7 retirements, helped him a lot and he wasn't mistake free in 85 like he was in 88, 89 and 90.

I completely agree with your statement "One thing is qualifying pace, another thing is what you do in the race itself. On race it's very difficult to do qualy laps one after another because of tire degradation, brake temps, etc." what I don't agree is that are people (not saying you are one) that thinks Senna was only good in qualy. The reality is that Ayrton was also pretty good at managing tyre degradation, brake temps, etc. I also agree that Prost took advantage of some of Senna's mistakes to win some deservedly races, but in some other cases was only a case of bad luck for Senna like when Senna's car differential failed at the start before even the first corner in France or his gear selector that broke on the parade lap in Brazil.

In the "best 2012 driver" polls you can also see that most people are including Maldonado in their top 10 even tough he did not beat a single FI, Mercedes or Sauber driver in the standings which indicates that people look for more than just points scored to rate a driver.

That's certainly a pretty cunning way to dodge a direct comparison between KR's and MS' comebacks.

No, it actually wasn't. I didn't even consider comparing them.

Michael was away for 3yrs following official retirement at 38+yrs. He returned at age 41yrs after only racing bikes and breaking his neck in the process. No matter how confident we are that we'll be the same as usual, it ain't so and this was duly confirmed with his being over shadowed by Rosberg, especially on raw pace which he improved on as the 3 yrs progressed. He and Rosberg have had to deal with a difficult car and Michael and MGP have been interestingly not getting weekends together when he had the most opportunity to get a good result. It would either be a mechanical failure or a penalty brought forward or incurred in the same event. It's so damning that I am often philosophical about it. Anyway....

Kimi returned to the sport after 2yrs. He left when he seemed to clearly have unfinished business and wasn't prepared to drive uncompetitive machinery. He returned after rallying, a sport that certainly keeps your reflexes up to speed for sure. He actually found it more demanding in some ways than F1. So he wasn't out of seriously competitive racing. He returned at age 33yrs, almost a decade younger than Michael and with only 1 championship to his name. Younger and hungrier and less rusty. It was no surprise to see him up to speed right away. None whatsoever. He's now in his prime and the Lotus/Renault has been a quite good car all year. He won his race on a very competitive race weekend for Lotus. He certainly hasn't lost his race craft at all. Very much the Kimi that I remembered two years ago. I'd be disappointed if he wasn't.

OTOH, everyone, including myself, were highly curious to see how Michael would fare at his age, after 3yrs out of the sport. IMO, I think many of his fans expected too much and continue to do so. In the same way, I think many of his detractors/haters naturally wish to prove a point and this 3yr stint does give them a lot to work with just as they find a lot to work with in his previous career. These drivers and their performances are such that if you wish to discredit them, there's a lot to work with. There's no current driver ATM who is free from such opportunities to discredit and belittle. It's just a matter of whether or not you like the driver.

Well, I suppose you can then compare Lauda's and Kimi's comebacks the best. Schumacher's situation was slightly worse on a few different accounts compared to both: age, car, time spent away from the sport. But that's it.

Michael was away for 3yrs following official retirement at 38+yrs. He returned at age 41yrs after only racing bikes and breaking his neck in the process. ...

Kimi returned to the sport after 2yrs. ...

For my part, I agree with all of the above. I mentioned Kimi because his case is somewhat comparable with Lauda, who you mentioned, and you seemed to have forgotten about him. It is Schumacher's age, not motivation or the difference between a two and three year gap, that makes his a different case IMO.

For my part, I agree with all of the above. I mentioned Kimi because his case is somewhat comparable with Lauda, who you mentioned, and you seemed to have forgotten about him. It is Schumacher's age, not motivation or the difference between a two and three year gap, that makes his a different case IMO.

I think it´s also forgotten that Kimi had an far easier task regarding his teammate (so far). Grosjean was absent from F1 as long as Kimi, had very little F1 experience in general and crashed virtually every second race on top of that. Under such circumstances it less likely that one gets exposed of not always being at 100% of the car´s potential.

It´s still clear for me that Kimi´s performances were better though. It impressed me most, that he was never involved in any incidents and therefore was able to finish every race in the points bar one.

I think it´s also forgotten that Kimi had an far easier task regarding his teammate (so far). Grosjean was absent from F1 as long as Kimi, had very little F1 experience in general and crashed virtually every second race on top of that. Under such circumstances it less likely that one gets exposed of not always being at 100% of the car´s potential.

I would not denigrate Kimi's season. It has impressed me, and that has nothing to do with the team-mate comparison - both Nico and Romain are fast, but obviously Romain needs to develop better racecraft. Kimi has won a race and been a factor in many more, and he has stayed at the sharp end of the WDC standings for most (or all) of the season. He had a better car than MS, absolutely, but he still did a lot with it.

Prost has always admitted that Ayrton was a better qualifyer than him. But in the Monaco 88 **race** (faster than Senna by more than 2seProst was with excellent race pace, started setting fastest laps c a lap if i remember well) on his way to catching Senna, Ayrton took Prost's bait and increased his lap pace until he crashed out.

So who was the better driver in Monaco 88? Senna had the best qualy pace, but lost his cool during the race. Prost's race pace was excellent. Senna won the Monaco GP 6 times, Prost, 4 times. So both were pretty handy on this track.

There are more qualities that make a driver "great". Qualy speed is only one of them. Lauda wasn't the fastest qualifier in 1984 (compared to Prost) but he had other qualities that helped him win the WDC.

By the way, i consider that in 1988 and 1989 Senna was at his peak, and Prost was already past his peak. Prost's peak was 1985 and he was particularly impressive in the years before (1981-1985), also in the early years he didn't put a leash on himself when the track was extremely wet.

In the light of this, Lauda's 1984 title is impressive since Lauda was really OLD and arguably "rusty", while Prost was in top form.

I know you try your best in order to "prove" Prost was as good as Ayrton, but pleeeeeease....

Where did you take that from??

Senna was 52 seconds ahead of Prost. Prost set TWO (!!!) faster laps than Ayrton from lap 56 to lap 66 (Ayrton´s mistake). Prost´s fastest lap was 0.4 seconds slower than Ayrton´s... Alain´s was in lap 57 and Ayrton´s on lap 59

AGIAN, WHERE did you take this " Alain´s pace was better" or "Alain was catching Senna" thing? You can say Senna was imature as he wanted to lap Prost and humiliate him or even that Prost was better that day, but Senna was obviouslly way faster in qualifying and race pace.

OTOH, everyone, including myself, were highly curious to see how Michael would fare at his age, after 3yrs out of the sport. IMO, I think many of his fans expected too much and continue to do so.

Had the Mercedes been the car he appears to have been lead to believe it would be, then I think I would have found 2010 very disappointing. Although having said that, he didn't start badly for someone out of the sport during a number of rule changes that made it somewhat different to last time he was driving. But his attitude when it was becoming clear the Mercedes wasn't going to be challenging for more than a podium at best now and then suggested he was quietly biding his time for the team to come good. Yes, he was rusty, and maybe age did more to reduce his adaptability than his overall speed, but he didn't come back to trundle around in the midfield, much as sometimes one wants to think he was her for the love of the sport, and not the highs of success.

2011 was much, much better. I would say that for at least the latter half he performed as well as I could have hoped - In the first half he wasn't at all bad either, but maybe an element of desperation in him to prove himself, coupled with a car that left him in the middle of the GP2 crashaholics, caused him a few too many problems. But more than that, driving a midfield car to the best it can manage is never going to look as impressive as driving a front running car below par if you only look at points.

2012 really matched my expectations, it's just sadly so did the Mercedes. While many were saying "they'll get on top of it, every team is having issues with something" for the first 5 or 6 races, all I saw was the chaos and circus suited antics of the Brackley team since they first imposed themselves on the grid (I had the misfortune of going to the Autosport show the year BAR launched.. With their twice or more daily "unveiling" complete with naff Pollocks video and punchably smug Jardine presentation). Nearly half the points gap between the two Mercedes drivers was down to one race - One of two races this car had any shine whatsoever to it. And instead of a 1,2, finger trouble saw an 18 point deficit and a 1 none. Of course, the other weekend the car looked at all strong Schumacher looked by far the stronger driver. And even aside from his (uncalled for, IMO) penalty from the previous race, or the usual Grosjeaning start, the car failed him. To this day I cannot make my mind up whether I'd have rather seen him heading to a certain win when the car failed, or if it was better he was stuck mid points when it did the inevitable.

So although this is another recap, I would say that for the first year, or at least most of the first year, I was disappointed by Schumacher. Even taking into account age and time out of the sport, he just seemed to not be showing the magic that had first caught my attention nearly 20 years ago. But for the last two years, overall the disappointment has been with his determination to stay loyal to, and believe in, this shambles of a team. His speed, his racing spirit, his sheer talent has shone through enough that I believe had he been in a Lotus, Red Bull or McLaren he would have been a constant front runner, and more likely than not title contender.

Yes i know. I was there. So what? How on earth a guy who was 52 seconds behind your teamate is "catching" the leader who was 1.4 seconds faster in qualifying and set a 0.4 seconds fastest lap on the race and 12 laps to go??

Prost couldn´t overtake a 2 seconds per lap slower car for 55 laps and you think he could reach Ayrton - faster the entire race - wich was 52 seconds ahead and overtajke him? All this in just 12 laps? How does this make sense?

Yes i know. I was there. So what? How on earth a guy who was 52 seconds behind your teamate is "catching" the leader who was 1.4 seconds faster in qualifying and set a 0.4 seconds fastest lap on the race and 12 laps to go??

Prost couldn´t overtake a 2 seconds per lap slower car for 45 laps and you think he could reach Ayrton - faster the entire race - wich was 52 seconds ahead and overtajke him? All this in just 12 laps? How does this make sense?